Rewriting, my ass.
Some conservatives are now accusing liberals of trying to rewrite history.
They say that the left is falsely claiming WMDs were the only reason that we invaded Iraq.
They say that the left is falsely claiming WMDs were the only reason that we invaded Iraq.
Well, were WMDs the only reason we went to war?
Let me put it like this: You go to get a haircut. You always read the magazines while waiting. On the way out, you always grab a lollipop from the dish on the counter.
Let me put it like this: You go to get a haircut. You always read the magazines while waiting. On the way out, you always grab a lollipop from the dish on the counter. Would you say then that there are three reasons that you go to the barbershop? And if the barbers were unable to cut your hair, would you still think it was money well spent to drop $15 on a sucker and an opportunity to leaf through ‘ESPN for Kids?’ Two outta three ain't bad, right?
So this guy at Instapundit, can argue that WMDs weren’t the only reason we went. But what he cannot do, is argue that WMDs weren’t the principal, indispensable, fundamental reason we went.
So this guy at Instapundit, can argue that WMDs weren’t the only reason we went. But what he cannot do, is argue that WMDs weren’t the principal, indispensable, fundamental reason we went.Next he says that liberals are lying when they say that Bush&Co. lied about WMDs...
Let’s take this opportunity to look again at just how mammoth the discrepancy was between what the White House promised we would find in Iraq and what we found. Below is the super short version of Colin Powell’s legendary performance in front of the U.N.:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Chemical WMDs
"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."
Nuclear WMDs
"There is no doubt in my mind, these elicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program."
Biological WMDs
"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."
Misc. scary stuff
"Let me talk now about the systems Iraq is developing to deliver weapons of mass destruction, in particular Iraq's ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs...We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each…there may be more--but perhaps 18 that we know of."
Al Qaida links
"What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder…Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible…We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaida…After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today."
Maybe the administration didn’t lie, maybe they were just swearing that they knew something that they didn’t know (that’s lying too, by the way). Either way, we can't let Instapundit get away with its own brand of historical revisionism and claim that WMDs were just one of a slew of reasons that we invaded Iraq and that we weren't intentionally misled.
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Chemical WMDs"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."
Nuclear WMDs
"There is no doubt in my mind, these elicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program."
Biological WMDs
"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."
Misc. scary stuff
"Let me talk now about the systems Iraq is developing to deliver weapons of mass destruction, in particular Iraq's ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs...We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each…there may be more--but perhaps 18 that we know of."
Al Qaida links
"What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder…Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible…We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaida…After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today."
Maybe the administration didn’t lie, maybe they were just swearing that they knew something that they didn’t know (that’s lying too, by the way). Either way, we can't let Instapundit get away with its own brand of historical revisionism and claim that WMDs were just one of a slew of reasons that we invaded Iraq and that we weren't intentionally misled.
By Robert - 10/31/2005
15 Comments:
I would suggest also scanning this article in The Guardian which shows the timetable to pitch the war in Iraq immediately after 9/11:
November 19, 2001 -"Hawks in the US administration shift the case against Iraq from September 11 and the anthrax attacks to weapons of mass destruction. John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security, tells an arms conference in Geneva that President Saddam may have covertly developed biological weapons in the past three years."
January 29, 2002 Mr Bush then lists Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria as part of an "axis of evil" in his state of the union speech to Congress. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says and shifts the focus of US foreign policy from terror groups to governments.
Seriously, did Bush or any other neocon mention anything about nation building or bringing democracy to the region while they were building the case?
Is so please bring it to my attention....
Thank you bob for an excellent post. and a great/humorous analogy.
Absent WMD as a reason, there is ZERO CHANCE that Congress gives Bush the authority to go to war. ZERO.
What if we take your analogy a different way? Let's say you're leaving the house, and the sole purpose of leaving your house is to get a haircut.
But then on your way out the door you happen to check the fridge and see that you're out of milk. So you decide to stop on the way to get some milk.
You leave the house, and you stop at the grocery store. While you're there, you pick up your milk, and you happen to see that there's a special on eggs, too, so you pick up a carton of those because your kids are having some friends over for a sleepover and you want to make them breakfast in the morning.
Then you get back in your car to go to the barbershop, but as soon as you pull out of the grocery store parking lot the Low Fuel light comes on. You look at the price of gas across the street, which is strangely low, and you decide to stop and get some gas.
While your car is filling up you wash the windows and check the air in your tires. Satisfied that everything is in order, you head to the barbershop.
Except, by the time you get there, it's closed. You had thought they closed at 4, but they actually close at 2 on Saturday. Shoot!
But since there's a Home Depot on your way home, you decide to pick up some sealant for your deck, a project that you had been putting off for a long time despite your wife's incessant nagging. Walking past aisle 17 you see that there is a special on plywood, and like any good man, you can't have too much spare plywood, so you by a few sheets, and even pick up a brand new laser level that was on special on your way out.
Finally, you get home, and sure, you may not have gotten your haircut, but you got milk, eggs, gas, learned some valuable information about your barbershop's hours, and got some toys to keep you busy for a while. Maybe you didn't accomplish the original purpose of your trip, but you accomplished a lot.
My point is this: how many times have you intended to do something and things didn't work out the way that you had planned? What's the best thing to do when that happens? Make the most of it.
Not sure how applicable this is to the Iraq situation, but I had fun writing up that little story, so it seemed a waste not to share it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a haircut to get.
Funny Steve, but I would hope the leader of the free world would be a tad less haphazard and whimsical.
We entrusted W. with the national car keys to go get us a haircut and he came back with nothing but an empty bottle of gin and the last bite of a Chalupa in his lap.
Pete, my favorite part of your recent Bush defense was when you said: "Being wrong is not lying!"
I think you've hit on a good campaign slogan for the Republicans in '08.
The haircut analogy is downright foolish. This might be the the most foolish post I've ever read on this site.
Here is an excerpt from the New York Times editorial that discussed Bush's speech from February of 2003.
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."
This was a speech that Bush gave before the war, that the NYTimes notes did NOT focus on WMDs, and instead outlined different objectives, which to many supporters of the war, including myself, found and continue to find just as persuasive, WMDs or no WMDs. And let's not forget that the fact that WMDs were not found in Iraq does not mean that WMDs were not destroyed or moved and it does not mean that Saddam, who controlled billions of (thanks to the French and others) UNACCOUNTED FOR money, did not give substantial support to terrorist efforts (as noted in the Kay and Duelfer reports which noted that spreading and developing knowhow was the real danger.) Not to mention the fact that there is proof that Saddam has repeatedly harbored known terrorists. As far as more Al Qaeda/Iraq links, wouldn't a multibillionaire with billions of unaccounted for money who also happened to be under massive UN Sanctions do everything in his power to hide these links? But I digress...
Have you folks ever considered reading the actual resolution? I assume not considering the nonsense about the war that is repeatedly posted on this site. Here is some language cut from the resolution. Read it and tell me that WMDs were the only reason we went to war...
"Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region...
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups...
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;"
Who is being intentionally misled?
Just to be clear, the "resolution" that I quoted extensively from is the resolution that Congress passed to authorize the war.
Pete,
Once again, I am not saying that WMDs were the ONLY reason we went to war.
I am not saying that WMDs were the REAL reason we went to war.
I am saying that WMDs and terrorist links were the foremost justification put forth by this administration and the principle reason that average Americans condoned the invasion.
Without the threat of WMDs and terrorist links, the American public would never have sanctioned the war. Maybe you still would have, based on the ‘liberate the Iraqis’ or the ‘march of democracy’ or the ‘beacon for the Arab world’ reasoning, but clearly WMDs were the fundamental, indispensable reason that mainstream America got onboard.
Here is your real stance as I see it: (correct me if I’m wrong)
"The public is dumb and has no collective balls. Bush&Co. had to sex up the WMD stuff to sell the war, because the real reason for the invasion (the long term stabilizing influence of the Middle East) was too complicated to sell, too difficult to rally the people behind. So Bush&Co. exaggerated a bit and stretched the truth a tad. Not for the sake of oil profits, but because they believed that this was the best way to make America safer in the long run, whether the average American understood it or not."
See, deep down, I don’t think you have a problem with the administration lying about WMDs.
(And I know a smart guy like you doesn’t believe that a Hitler-esc dictator, on the verge of being invaded by the infidels, would sneak his only means of self-defense across the Syrian border! He had no problem using chemical weapons on his own women and children and yet he decided not to use his awesome arsenal of WMDs against the invading white-devil?! This makes zero sense, Pete.)
And if Bush&Co. didn't lie...
How do you explain this super-colossal discrepancy?
Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a great book and if you have not read it, you might want to: it touches on this topic very well.
I have to hand it to pete, at least he actually quoted the resolution that congress passed.
How about this explaination? Liberals are more likely to try and use diplomacy and avoid armed conflicts, so liberals would only have voted for a resolution given that Iraq did indeed have WMDs. On the other hand most conservatives would consider war as an option for the sole fact that Saddam was ruthless, and the world would be a better place with an Iraq that hosts a government propped up by the U.S. There's a good deal of realitivity when it comes to which motives were the most important.
I think both Bob's and Steves analogies have relevancy problems. The actual PURPOSE of going to iraq wasn't to get rid of WMDs. Had there been WMDs in Iraq, and we had sent Commandos in there and blown 'em all up, no one would have called it a victory (I hope). The villain could lick his wounds and commit atrocities another day in the future.
A better analogy would have been that I go to the barbershop because my hair is too long,and I need some of that pro-formula hairgel. But when I get there I find that E! is playing on the shop's TV. It turns out that long scruffy hair (with retarded trucker hats) is in now! So I didn't need a haircut afterall. But that gel is still necessary to give me that "textured look" so I pick up a tube of gel and I'm on my way.
Not only did I get my hair gel, but I also found out how to give it the new "in" look.
That said, I still don't like the war, I am too pessimistic about the long term prospects for a free iraq. And it is interesting to make the claim that we are helping iraqis when they have lost over 100,000 civilians. Would they have still wanted our help knowing that they would lose so many?
Jeff you said:
"The actual PURPOSE of going to iraq wasn't to get rid of WMDs."
Hmmmmm...that's not what I heard.
I heard we went to disarm Saddam, so that he couldn't give WMDs to his terrorist buddies who would use them to attack the homeland.
Bob, I am all with you on this one.
Also, Pete (and alike thinkers), all this talk about this not being about WMD is absurd. Sure, maybe other stuff was mentioned at other times. However, the bottom line continues to be that congress would have NEVER approved a war if it were not for the WMD component. It is just a fact. So all the other reasons are seriously subordinate, if not irrelevant.
No no, a REASON we went to iraq was to get rid of WMDs, but our porpuse of sending an invasion force over there was to get rid of saddam, and change the regime.
This is why I hate arguements that use analogies.
Jeff,
Do you hate arguements that use counter-analogies?
Post a Comment
<< Home